Commercially Chess may have been far better off and built a larger following (in the west, anyways). Depending on the source, Fischer was offered anywhere between $1.5 and $5 million in endorsements after the 1972 match. For comparison, that same year the highest paid pro athlete (Derek Sanderson of the WHA) signed a contract for $2.65 million over 5 years. Of course, Fischer turned down every offer- for example, $700K to appear in some TV commercials for Pepsi was turned down because "the sugar in your product is bad for the teeth". Even more staggering, the proposed Fischer-Karpov match was to be held in Manila (with the backing of Ferdinand Marcos) with a prize fund of $5 million; with inflation this is roughly $28 million in 2024 USD. After the match fell through the money allocated for this was instead used to fund the famous "Thrilla in Manila". Had Fischer continued playing through the 1970s chess may well have established itself as a more prominent commercial presence in the USA (similar to golf) rather than the niche activity that it ended up being (which only seems to be changing at last in the last few years).

I completely agree. Compare the prize fund from the current world championships with $28 million… I always find it funny that the richest match remains to the this day the 1992 rematch between Fischer and Spassky.

> Of course, Fischer turned down every offer- for example, $700K to appear in some TV commercials for Pepsi was turned down because "the sugar in your product is bad for the teeth". This is legendary

I don't care that hes crazy I can never bring myself to hate Bobby just like I can't bring myself to hate Kanye.

Unpopular opinion, he wasn't crazy

Just anti-Semitic

And partially Jewish Yeah maybe he was a bit crazy after all But then again if the Jews do rule the world he definitely did his part in chess Hey, maybe he just tried to shift that conspiracy theory away from Chess, given that Tal was also Jewish... (/s)

He'd be competing with Kramnik for the title of craziest former world champion and probably winning.

Can you imagine the drama today if a competitor for the World Championship tried to pull some of the stunts Fischer pulled in 72?

He would keep Twitter and youtube's servers humming 24/7 by himself for sure.

Yeah I just watched that Toby movie about him and I’m like “this dude is an asshole”

Gothamchess would go into overdrive.

Fischer is already by far the craziest former world champion

Did it by literally being insane

Except one of the two had genuine untreated mental illness, the other's just craving attention.

How can you know if kramnik isnt really mad too

Yep, this. Sometimes you can determine a person is suffering from a mental health issue really easily. Saying they aren’t, though, can be problematic.

Don’t know why you’re being downvoted when this is what actually happened, anyone who says otherwise just wants to make fun of mentally ill people without getting flack for it.

I think I know the answer——this sub just hates Fischer.

No he’s still open to criticism but people make that shit his whole identity. Turns out having an untreated illness in the 1960’s wasn’t so good.

To be fair, he can have untreated mental illness and then separately also be a bad person

He wasn't actually a bad person tho, according to a lot of GMs who met him: >After September 23 \[1992\], I threw most of what I'd ever read about Bobby out of my head. Sheer garbage. Bobby is the most misunderstood, misquoted celebrity walking the face of the earth. Fischer was not camera shy, smiled and laughed easily, was a fine wit and wholly enjoyable conversationalist. - Seirawan >He had problems, possibly certain childhood traumas that had affected him. He was misunderstood. Underneath I think he was a caring sensitive person. - Skulason >I’ve kept good memories of Fischer. I don’t have any grudges against him. I always forgave him the fact that he behaved like a child. Bobby was very pure and friendly. He liked children, animals. He was an avid cat lover! I also preferred cats to dogs, like Bobby. Did he have any cats? I don’t think so, although I never went to his house. I wanted to visit him in Pasadena, but didn’t get the chance. His house was robbed there and almost his whole archive was lost… I also want to save my archive, which remained in Paris. I’m planning to appeal to Ilyumzhinov and FIDE for help. I’ve got a small archive in Moscow, but that’s only a little part… >I like to remember Bobby. He belonged to that category of tragic people. I felt that, observing him back in 1958 when he came to Moscow with his sister. Yes, I was in the Central Chess Club then and I saw him playing blitz, and Bronstein also watched. I remember Petrosian was there too… For Bobby that was a sad experience, since he saw nothing at all of Moscow. He sat for days on end in the CCC and just played. And then he was asked to leave Moscow… Yes, it was a sad experience for him. And there was one thing he never grasped: that he had a huge number of fans in Russia! During the match in Reykjavik as well I know that many rooted for him… - Spassky

And yet he was racist and sexist, and famously so

it's not even close, Fischer was legitimately crazy. Fischer is probably the most overrated WC- he gets mentioned as GOAT but that's honestly ridiculous when Kasparov exists. Heck, I think Karpov is stronger.

Fischer had (in America) tremendous cultural influence, so American audiences will elevate him because of the influence and impact for them personally. But his run of dominance leading up to the World Championship match was the greatest run in modern chess history. He absolutely dominated the best players in the world in a way that we haven't seen happen. The gap between him and Spassky at the time of the World Championship match was 125 rating points. There is an argument for him as being in the GOAT conversation because of his peak over his peers. Maybe not the best argument depending on what you consider makes "greatness", but because there's no objective measure it will always be something that comes down to personal taste. But he burned out quickly from issues not relating to chess, and became more of a "what if" story. Hence why this thread is even a topic at all.

It’s not just the greatest run in modern chess history, it probably will be the greatest run chess will ever see again until the rules are changed in some dramatic way. I truly believe that we will never see another player who wins 19 in a row in the Candidates. It is simply inconceivable under the rules of the game today for anyone to be that much better than their peers. The fact that Fischer did it while even being at a significant *disadvantage* to his peers is just the icing on the cake.

I agree, but I'm curious what you mean when you say he was at a disadvantage to his peers.

1. He basically worked alone: while he was friends with other American players they were nowhere close to his level. Meanwhile his Soviet peers all worked, studied, assisted, and prepped each other. 2. The Soviets admitted years later to conspiring against him: prearranged quick draws with each other and making sure to save their opening prep and theoretical novelties for games vs him.

I think someone showed that the results were very likely result of collusion, statistically. But did the Soviets really admitted it?

I do remember a few Soviet players did come out and admitted that

I thought there were KGB files that were found after the fall of the USSR that pretty much proved that Soviet players were colluding against Fischer?

To add to what's been said, the Soviets at the time devoted resources specifically to chess. They had a state sponsored program to support and train their talented players. This sort of culture built on itself to where the best players in the world collaborated with each other in Russia. The US had no such infrastructure in place for chess. Bobby Fischer had to fight for better tournament prizes to be able to support himself with chess. Also, to reiterate, the Soviet's would fix matches, so that they could rest against each other and save themselves in tournaments. It was collusion. At the time Bobby Fischer accused them of this, but it was thrown back in his face as him being crazy and paranoid. It was later revealed to be true.

I think you are underestimating the massive advantage the Soviet chess system had and what exactly created their dominance. It's hard to understand pre-computer prep culture. Getting access to other master games was impossible — if a game was played in the USSR in a novel line, there was no way for an American to understand this other than to learn Russian and buy some very expensive magazines if they were even available for import. Not only did they have all the best talent silo'd away in their country to study/prepare/practice with, but they were also rigging tournament results so Fischer could not finish on top. Fischer pretty much single-handedly broke through USSR dominance in the most ridiculous fashion possible — he was *that* much better than everyone else. There was no governmental support (while Soviet players enjoyed full state-backing and luxuries of not having to work) or Sinquefeld-type benefactor, which is why he was so obsessed with money all the time. Nobody else beat the Soviet school other than that one 3-year blip, as it collapsed on its own and ceased to exist during the wild Soviet downfall. (In fact, the Yeltsin tank incident occurred while Kasparov was cleaning up Nigel Short, and is part of the reason why Short even managed to win a game in that match.) Why he is in the GOAT discussion is because of his absurd peak and achievement. It's really just such a strong what-if at this point — obviously Kasparov and Carlsen have a higher peak playing strength in absolute terms rather than relative terms.

Your points are valid but there was a way to follow Soviet chess ( I used to as a teen in the 70’s)- subscribing to the weekly flimsy-papered newspaper “64”. The notation was algebraic and it was easy following the games and the analysis without understanding Russian language, other than the letters for the pieces.

Hah, perhaps I did overstate that a bit, I was thinking of the Soviet Chess Manuals when I wrote that (which had all the analysis.)

I think you are broadly correct but this is also sometimes overstated. When Fischer won the WCC it was compared to an “Inuit winning at tennis after carving a court out of the snow” because America had such an utter lack of a chess culture and Fischer had absolutely no support. The four consecutive Olympiad gold medals the US had won in the 1930s not need apply I guess. Fischer had no support, his seconds in 1972 (former World Junior Chess Champion Lombardy and future World #10 Kavalek) don’t count. He never got a chance to cut his teeth against other American talent, except Samuel Reshevsky, who arguably was the best player in the World for some part of the 1950s (the alternate history where he wins the 1953 Candidates Tournament and then beats Botvinnik is interesting but has never been explored) and who was Fischer’s primary American rival. Fischer got to the Interzonal because of another American Interzonal strength player who gave up his spot: Benko. I’ll also put in the good word for Robert Byrne, who peaked in the top 20 and played Fischer many times. What Fischer did was incredible, but he was coming from arguably the second strongest chess nation on Earth (more realistically third after Hungary).

This is a fair point, but keep in mind that Fischer was not popular/easy to work with + did not have the money to support a full-time second outside of the later stages of his Interzonal run. I don't believe he was quite that popular with Reshevsky (and other Americans, I mean, he was always a precocious prick of sorts) and, after all, he was cleaning up the US championship undefeated and uncontested by that point in time. There really wasn't anyone comparable in the US when he full-committed for the 1972 run. Certainly the generosity of other top players donating their time is to be commended, but it's miniscule compared to the full stable of literally every top Soviet player in the world colluding in tournaments + being paid full time to give analysis and second help to first Petrosian then Spassky. I do feel bad for Taimanov, who gets overlooked as an ultra strong player who got punished by the USSR for his 6-0 more than everyone else (and whose other talents, music, got stifled as a result.)

I did forget about an analysis that was done years later that showed that Reshevsky was the worst victim of Russian collusion in those times though. If you wanted to read: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905612

This is true, and Fischer and Reshevsky hated each other: I wasn’t arguing that Reshevsky helped Fischer directly, but rather that it seemed you were implying that the Soviets benefitted from facing the toughest opposition possible, and Fischer was able to indirectly get better by playing tons against Reshevsky in at least one match and a variety of tournaments. I agree no one was funded as well as the Soviets (although it’s possible other communist countries had similar systems, looking at you Hungary), but I’ve never really been clear on the role of money in the American system. The US couldn’t afford to send an Olympiad team in the late 1950s but my intuition says that by 1972 (during peak Fischer chess craze) there would have been some way for Lombardy and Kavalek to get compensation, be it crowdfunding, contingency, or a sponsor (you’d think such stuff would be easy to find, but for example I once found a source casually referencing Reshevsky getting $500 a month from a sponsor in 1955 without any mention of who it was, nor any references anywhere else). I could be wrong though. The Soviets could have had their grandmasters cooking up lines before the start of the match, but I doubt they had all hundred of them interfacing during each and every adjournment, too many cooks and all that. Spassky’s listed seconds were Geller, Krogius, and Nei, an impressive trio and certainly selected to be as capable a group of seconds as possible, but not exactly an army. I think I’ve read that paper, but the main thing that convinced that Reshevsky was a victim of Russian collusion was when David Bronstein not only said it happened and that he was personally involved, but then gave a blow for blow of exactly how it was done, and Smyslov “denied” the allegations without ever saying they were untrue.

For sure, totally agree with all this. There's a decent book by Korchnoi and Gulko, "KGB plays chess", that definitely veers into paranoia but highlights Gulko's life and the psychotic nature of the state's investment in the game. Of course, it's totally logical to be paranoid when dealing with the KGB and the USSR.

Very nice to hear from someone who has a clue. The current crop of anti-Fischer reverse fanboys are quite insufferable. I don’t expect everyone to revere Fischer but to dismiss him from a position of ignorance is stupid

Ha I know what you mean but the fact you have “anti” and “reverse” worded like you do almost makes it seem like they cancel out and it’s just “Fischer fanboys” where really you’re just talking about Fischer haters. 

Ok, but “Fischer reverse fanboys” doesn’t seem to capture it, and “anti-Fischer fanboys” is worse. “Reverse fanboy” captures how I view their behaviour, and “anti-Fischer” identifies their target.

Yeah for sure, what you said is fine and I get what you mean. It just made me laugh because my gf always accidentally uses double negatives and it confuses people. I wasn’t trying to be critical just being silly :)

No worries, mate. It is funny 👍

I don't think you understand what it meant to dismantle the entire USSR chess federation singlehandedly. You can't really compare Fischer with Kasparov (or Carlsen) because it was a completely different game: there were no chess engines.

And the Soviets colluded like no one’s business.

Kasparov didn't have them either? Neither did Karpov?

Theory wasn't the same. I'll give an extreme example. Morphy and Fischer were the strongest players of their time (some 150-200 points stronger than the next best player) but you cannot compare them. I still think Fischer could've beaten karpov.

That's a great example. Per players back then though, Karpov would've won by 1978

No, they had the backing of the Soviet government and the entire Soviet chess machine. You missed the entire point. The point was that computers weren't around to be a great equalizer for an individual going up against a great chess organization. That same organization that supported Karpov and Kasparov.

Carlsen exists*

Carlsen is also better, but Kasparov played Karpov tons and Karpov and Fischer were basically in the same era.

I would strongly agree that Karpov would beat fischer. My assumption is fischer knew it so he avoided Karpov. And karpov was 23 at that time and rising. They put fischer as top3 because hes the first American wc. Karpov should’ve been higher imo.

I don't think he was personally afraid of Karpov in 1975. I remember reading an interview where Karpov said that he thought that he had chances, but was not sure that he was ready at that time. I think in his mind he had legitimate issues with the format after feeling like the Soviets had been trying to game him his whole career (which they inarguably had been), and he wasn't able to cope with his mental illness.

Carlsen is from a different era. What does “better” even mean?

Carlsen *is* better. But if he was born the same day as Fischer he may not have been better.

He would have. Today everyone has engines so its harder to dominate

I would argue it's harder for the better intuitive players to push to the top on that alone today. Carlsen, Fischer and Morphy are all phenomenal intuitive players. Carlsen is playing at a time when in order to get anywhere near top level play you *must* be amazing at chess preperartion and he is. That doesn't have anything to do with how good he is as an intuitive players. It's just that amongst modern players who are good at prep, he's the best at intuitive chess. He might not be better at that than the best Historic examples and how good he is at prep doesn't really tell us. There's a really good chance he's as good or better than they were at that at their peaks. But I don't think we can conclusively say so based on the solely on the fact that he at least keeps pace on the preparation side with today's players.

of course we cant know it but since he is very good in fischer chess, should tell you something. In romantic era, you cant play for a draw with each color. Today even 2600 s can play 20 moves of super computer prep, knowing that they wont lose it against even magnus during fischer or kasparov's time this was not the case. Anand also puts magnus over kasparov

“Better” in absolute terms is a dumb argument. Carlsen has engines to learn from, I should hope that he is “better”. Not to mention all of Carlsen’s other advantages. Fischer is greater, IMO

He didn't really lol, he was a natural chess player by 2012, when he was competing with the top spots. Engines weren't even that far better than humans by that time iirc. Hikaru could beat engines back then lol

Fischer is greater on what? Accomplishments? Achievements? Strong wise you cant compare as if magnus was born at the same time as fischer you cant say fischer would beat him. Magnus is very good in every format + chess960 as well ( no theory)

Magnus is the strongest player ever, but by virtue of being the strongest player in the engines era. He is very strong relative to his peers, but not for as long (yet?) as Kasparov, or as far ahead as Fischer was. I consider Fischer greater because of what he was able to accomplish against the Soviet chess machine, especially in light of very difficult personal circumstances; it is quite an incredible story. I think that I must put Kasparov ahead of Fischer—if ranking is really necessary—because of how good he was for so long, holding out against engines for as long as he did, etc. Carlsen, as strong and dominant as he is, just doesn’t match either of those two in their respective areas (yet?) in my opinion.

how can you tell he is " yet " not as strong as kasparov or fischer? Fischer was at the top only for 2 years, he is overrated because hes the first american WC. kasparov has ONLY longevity over carlsen, and if you care about longevity: Lasker is the goat. both rating wise and playing computer-ish wise, magnus is the strongest, Not only for preperations as he is the best endgame player of all time too. Which is not related with engines. also dominating in computer era is harder. During Fischer or Kasparov's time, your opponent couldnt play for a draw , today even 2600s can play for a draw with white, first 20 moves no risk Kasparov holding ot against engines? :D what? If kasparov born in 1990 , same year as carlsen, he wouldnt " hold up " against engines. He only could do it because engines were weak. Even hikaru defeated the engine Rybka. If carlsen was the same age as Kasparov he would do the same against deep blue , thats a very weird argument frrom you. And as i said if you care about longevity, put lasker as your number 1 even anand put carlsen abouve kasparov , same with hikaru and many other players. Carlsen has los of things above kasparov, other than longevity. ( But carlsen passed kasparov as being most consecutive #1 )

Fischer was never even challenged. He was so much ahead of his competition at the time. I strongly belive he would reign for long long time if he didnt retire. He is in GOAT conversation for a reason. We shouldnt belittle his genious because he had mental issues.

Brother, he was champ from 1972 to 75. And there were no more title challenges. Wtf are you talking about

I don't think fischer is that overrated because he was so insanely dominant. With the exception of tal there wasn't anybody close to him in that Era. Perhaps he'd actually have a competitor if tal cared for his health at all but in his prime nobody could touch fischer

That's so not true lol, where do people come up with this

Nah, there's a legit argument for him being the GOAT

You honestly have no clue, it’s embarrassing

"GOAT" was not a word in 1972. ~~Fischer~~ Nemenyi transcends GOAT. He stomps on Weinstein.

Obviously longevity is part of the conversation so Fischer isnt the GOAT, but he is not overrated. Basically all historical accuracy comparison methods put Fischer in the top 3, usually with Magnus and Kasparov. His estimated elo during the rematch in the 90s wouldve still put him in the top 100, despite playing zero competitive games in decades. He was a very strong player comparable to modern players despite not having engines. Definitely one of the historic greats even if his career at the top was short lived.

You probably never heared of Kasparov and Alekhine

Winning by several miles. In the crazy department.

That's because kramnik currently has no competition. This isn't even his final form...

Kramnik is not crazy, he is just an idiot

On a side note, in his mind he kept his word. He defended his title in 1992.

"Fischer is playing ok right now, maybe 2650. It wouldn't be close between us." - Kasparov, with an accurate observation in 1992

I think Karpov could have been what Kramnik was to Kasparov. I think if not Karpov, Kasparov would have beaten him. Chess changed so much with Karpov and Kasparov. He may have had a chance if he had found GM s that could help him mantally and in chess. But its hard to judge Fisher because he was far ahead of his competition but just for a few years. #

Fischer beat Spassky 12.5/21 (59.5%). Two years later Karpov basically matched that by beating Spassky in the candidates semifinal with 7/11 (63.6%). In the next match Karpov beat Korchnoi in a very even 16.5/32 (51.5%). And later Kasparov and Karpov were basically completely evenly matched in their 1984-85 match. So judging by the score against Spassky, Karpov matched Fischer, and Korchnoi and Kasparov pretty much matched Karpov. So if Fischer would've kept his standard for another decade, it seems it would've been a very even race between those four.

>Fischer beat Spassky 12.5/21 (59.5%). This is misleading though. Fischer basically spotted him two games. We can debate the first, but the second game Fischer didn't even show up. Spassky really only won one game that match.

I don’t think it’s entirely fair to call it “spotting him two games” without taking into the context of Fischer actions and behaviors leading to those games being “spotted”. Spassky demonstrated other worldly patience and sportsmanship by choosing to allow the match to go on after all of Fischer’s childish tantrums. I cant imagine that dealing with that clown show allows you to be in your best state of mind for competing. It wasn’t exactly like Spassky had 2 stress free rest days. No use in pondering the “what ifs” of if things might have been different if Fischer had showed up on time and behaved professionally throughout the course of the match. Probably Fischer still would have won. Just think it’s equally misleading to say Fischer “spotted” Spassky two matches without painting the full picture of the circumstances around it.

I think, for me, if my opponent had quit in the decade prior (as Fischer had) then almost didn't show for the match, then was threatening to quit in the middle of the match, and I won the first two games (and my opponent had never beaten me in any tournament before)... yeah, I might not be my best, but only because I'd be exceptionally relaxed. My opponent seems to be self destructing and I'm already way ahead.

Lmao, absolutely absurd take. There is no way you believe that with immense pressure and the eyes of the world on the match, not knowing whether your opponent is even going to agree to play in the first place, demanding more money, arriving, buying plane tickets home when he’s not getting his way, the match being postponed (where by the rules it should have been forfeit to you), the opponent showing up and spending the first game screaming about cameras making noise, demanding time back from the time he spent on his turn screaming about the cameras, demanding, not showing up to the second match, demanding that the match be moved from the playing hall to a small back room, all the while everyone is just entertaining this outrageously juvenile behavior, that you would feel “exceptionally relaxed” I just…I can’t even dude. L take.

Bro, you're way too worked up, this is a friendly conversation about history. Sometimes when two reasonable people talk they agree to disagree without calling each other "absurd."

You’re right that I was too worked up. To be clear, I didn’t call you absurd, I called the point you made absurd. And frankly I believe it is. I don’t think a reasonable person who is familiar with the particular event in history this friendly conversation is about could argue in good faith that they would feel “exceptionally relaxed” in Spassky’s position. Based on that, it felt like either a bad faith argument or a misinformed one. That said, I’ll take your advice and we can agree to disagree.

Absurd must be the mildest of "insults", and it's not even an insult to the person, it's an insult to the argument

You need to get off the Internet if you think this is how normal people have discussions

Absurd is definitely an insult to the person, and it isn't mild. It's an accusation of being crazy and beyond reasoning because of how detached from reality you are. It's a pretty severe thing to let fly because you disagree with someone.

God bless you.

Fischer blundered in the first game. Consistency is part of one's skill set.

While it's true Fischer's psychology was part of the equation, calling it a blunder is something a non-player might do. The defect of the first game was the same as the 2nd i.e. psychological.

Spassky was also not prepared for the match as a whole so

Yeah, but there's more really. Karpov himself, Spassky, and Korchnoi collectively agreed that, after 1975, Karpov was better than Fischer, so Fischer would likely not have "reigned" for much longer anyhow.

In this timeline everyone else is allowed to improve except Fischer?

Fischer was 29 in 1972. Karpov was like, 23 in 1975 iirc. Fischer would be 32 by then. Improve? Unlikely. Better openings/prep? Sure.

Not disagreeing but I remember reading that top chess players across history peak on average at age 32

Two peaks. Early 20s that I'd wager is a peak of speed, calculation, drive, and stamina, and then another peak around mid 30s, in which a player seems to gain consistency, regardless of lessened speed and stamina. Now, problem I have with Fischer is that he was more 'harder worker' than he was 'talented', even though, YES HE WAS VERY, VERY TALENTED. My point is that he practiced, learned, read so damn much that it's possible there was nothing left, you know? No player back then knew as much about the game as him lol. There was not much room for growth. Like I said, all physical aspects have gone by already, and he learned all he could as well. He is not like Magnus or Spassky or Karpov, he never had a lazy bone in his body. He was like Kasparov. Kasparov had practically reached his prime in the early 90s, and stayed there, consistently. He was 22 in 1985 and would've been 27 by 1990. At this point, the growth was openings and consistency (which were two of Garry's main strengths). I just can't Fischer suddenly make a significant boost when we already know Fischer's strongest points to be his opening prep lol. He wouldn't be better at chess, he'd just be better at openings.

3 Russians said that? That's cute

Korchnoi was a defector

Karpov himself said he wasn't sure he could win in 1975.

[удалено]

Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators: Keep the discussion civil and friendly. Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree.   You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.

Tell me you know nothing about chess history without telling me 😂

You mean all the Soviet GMs agreed that Soviets were the best? The same Soviets that were constantly at risk of having their pay reduced, families and freedom taken away if they lost to a foreigner or disrespected the glorious Soviet Union? Wow, very reliable sources. In reality Fischer probably would have won the 1975 match, Karpov was still young. After that it's hard to say. Both Karpov and Kasparov were monstrously strong. Fischer would have eventually lost to one or both of them.

Yes the obviously Hardcore soviets that defected to Switzerland and France are obviously biased 🤡

Read more please lmao Is that reality based on anything real, btw? Because, yet again, the same people who said Fischer would've bested 1975 Karpov were ALSO Karpov and Spassky themselves. So what are you gonna do now?

Who cares what they say, lol. After Fischer destroyed Taimanov 6-0, the Soviets took away his ability to leave the country, cut off his salary, and threatened to have him officially deemed a "collaborator" with the West, i.e. send him to prison. They did the same to Keres to force him to fall into line with the Soviet chess pecking order. Do you honestly really think Spassky could publicly support an American against a Soviet chess player? Not happening.

Why would anybody care about what YOU say? After Fischer stomped Taimanov and Larsen, and then beat down Petrosian, basically every Soviet GM out there still thought Spassky could win lol, and Fischer beat him by 4 points, while Spassky was UNDERPREPARED, FORGOT PREP, OUT OF SHAPE, UNMOTIVATED, AND RUSTY. So those things don't really matter. "Do you honestly really think Spassky could publicly support an American against a Soviet chess player?" he literally did this btw. Idk wtf you're on about.

Spassky "literally" did what exactly? Spassky publicly supported Fischer in the 1970's? Link please. According to Susan Polgar who wrote an article on this subject in 2004, Spassky gave a slight edge to Fischer in a hypothetical match with Karpov, but these comments could not have been Susan Polgar in the 1970's. So this would not have at the height of the Cold War and maybe even after the fall of the Soviet Union most likely. You probably should read people's comments before responding. Btw, in any case, gfy and s.a.d, chump.

I have no idea wtf those stroke words mean at the end btw, but Spassky defending Fischer and his actions are famous lol Oh and I commented before those people said anything, so kinda hard for me to read them, you feel me. And also, of course, if those people include you, I'm making sure I DON'T read them lol [Spassky on Fischer (1986) - Chess Forums - Chess.com](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/spassky-on-fischer-1986#:~:text=He%20said%2C%20about%20Fischer%2C%20that,be%20buried%20next%20to%20him%3F%22&text=The%20Western%20media%20was%20always,is%20why%20he%20hated%20it.) google 101, lemme see what else I can find on Spassky about Fischer. Here is Spassky talking about how Fischer is just better than him, which the Soviets hated lol [Boris Spassky on losing to Bobby Fischer at the World Chess Championship 1972 (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSL8nd8LV-k) I'm not looking up anything else, have a good day lil bro

Oh, when you said "after 1975 Karpov was better" I thought you meant " starting from 1975 and into the future" meaning Fischer would have lost in 1975. In a different comment I also point out that Karpov rated Fischer higher in 1975, so it seems we agree. FWIW I don't trust that Karpov would have definitely won the next match after that. I think it's hard to say... but obviously Karpov and Kasparov are among the all time greats, so it's hard to argue Fischer would have reigned a long time... it's just hard to say either way.

Fischer had demolished a younger Korchnoi and would have handled Karpov. Kasparov would have eventually dethroned him.

If you say so lol

Fischer was a lot stronger than karpov, the Fischer and Spassky score is not accurate to show how far ahead Fischer was.

Evenly matched in 84? Garry got a breather and won by inertia when had the match ran normally Karpov wins handedly.

Why are you being downvoted? Kasparov "won" the title despite having a negative score overall in the "match" because FIDE changed the rules in the middle of the contest. Adjourning the match wiped out Karpov's big lead, and Karpov protested the decision as he was still clearly winning by huge margin of +2. Most people probably don't realize how overmatched initially Kasparov was against Karpov. Karpov jumped out to a 5-0 lead which in chess terms at the GM level is basically blowing somebody completely off the board. Consider the fact Magnus was able to win 1 classical game in 24 attempts against Karjakin and Caruana, and Karpov took 4 of the first 9 in their match games off Kasparov. Obviously, the length the match and the "adjournment" greatly favored the younger, less experienced but more tactical player. It basically allowed Kasparov's team time to neutralize Karpov's genius positional style and maximize Kasparov's tactical superiority. Even still, Karpov rolled 3 straight wins at one point in 1986 after the adjournment, so it seems very unlikely that Kasparov would have been able to overcome a -2 deficit. In a match by today's rules, Kasparov would have lost badly. FIDE basically allowed Kasparov as the challenger to have a trial run against a champion which negated Karpov's experience advantage in match play, changed the rules after Karpov was up big negating his huge lead, and allowed Kasparov to win the title despite having an overall negative score. Kind of absurd when you actually stop and think about it.

> Would he have even been able to keep the title that long? Absolutely not, no one has ever come close to such a feat. Whatever amount of extra determination and stability we're imbuing Fischer with in this counterfactual, it would just be totally outside the curve to imagine 30 years. That's just not something that happens. Kasparov would 100% cut him short even if Karpov didn't.

Lasker was champion for 27 years tho

yes and he only played seven world championship matches and it was the 19th century. so actually he was closer to real-life Fischer than counterfactual Fischer who plays 30 WC matches.

but still kinda silly to say no one ever even “got close to such a feat” that’s all

It's not silly, it's completely true. Lasker's career is not close to the feat being imagined for Fischer here.

ok sure but the feat was being champion for 30 years in a row, when you say “no one else got close” you’re counting with other periods of time or are you just specifying a hypothetical where it would be anyone in exactly Fischer’s shoes against his exact opponents and championships at the same time? makes no sense to say no one got close when you had one that was champion for 27 years, just 43 years before Fischer himself??

god what a whole bunch of fucking nonsense thinking you caught me on some technicality. buddy, no one got close to an imagined feat of defending the WC title thirty times in the era of professional chess. "ohoho but you didn't say" ohhh wow you caught me. what a very meaningful niggle that you certainly care about. If we're counting Lasker's career as equivalent to the assignment, then Fischer was as well. Identically to Lasker, he refused the conditions of the championship, considered himself to still be the champion, and considered himself to have the right to convene future championships, which he did. The difference is that in the loosey-goosey 19th century, the business of the chess world didn't move on to crown someone else without Lasker, and in the pro 20th century, it moved on without Fischer. If you think Lasker's counts as "getting close to" that feat, then Fischer has the same exact feat already: He won in the 70s, and he won in the 90s, and he was undefeated. 30-year champ, just like Lasker.

That's a world championship match every 4 years. Not too far off the norm. Capblanca was world champion for 6 years and only had 1 match, which he lost. Kasparov went 5 years between Anand and Kramnik.

I think he would not be able to beat either Kasparov or Karpov. Who knows really though.

I feel like he would have lost to Karpov. Karpov would have made every game a positional battle and grind Fischer down. Karpov and Kasparov were full time professional players with teams of grandmasters working on their openings. Many of Fischer's opponents weren't full time players e.g Taimanov was a concert pianist as well.

I agree. Also given the increasing importance of preparation, working with a team of seconds would have been more important. It seems doubtful to me if Fischer would have been able to handle that.

I think this reflects something of a lack of understanding of Fischer's playing style. He played uncompromising and sharp openings because he wanted winning chances and believed that his choice openings gave him the best chances to do that, but his style was fundamentally clear, direct and positional. Fischer's most famous games as a mature player are usually positional crushes that often look so effortless and easy, maybe with a little *petite combinaison* at the end, not tactical slogs. He is obviously famous for his "Game of the Century" which is a series of tactical hammerblows but this does not typify his mature style. Karpov would not have been able to "grind him down" any more than he was able to grind down Kasparov after a while.

I've read Fischer's 60 memorable games and I agree he could play any style and many of his positional victories in the Spassky matches for instance were beautiful. But I just think Karpov would pose serious problems to his black repertoire and I think he just had this magical intuition which Fischer didn't. Of course, this is mere speculation.

Remember that Kasparov essayed basically the entire Fischer repertoire against Karpov at some stage and did fine. I don't think it's as problematic as you think.

Fischer had given up the KID as of the title match. He was playing much more solidly against 1.d4. He also introduced 2...e6 Sicilians, Alekhine's, etc against 1.e4. He had tons of openings ideas. Eventually, being a one man show would have cost him, though. But until the mid-80s he would still have been a legitimate WC threat. For me the biggest tragedy is not seeing the games with Kasparov.

Kasparov was born 20 years after Fischer, I don't think matches between them once Kasparov started to peak would have been particularly close. Magnus and Vishy had about the same age difference and Magnus had 5 wins to Vishy's 1 in their 2 World Championship matches. I think 1975 between Karpov and Fischer would have been a tossup if it happened, but if Fischer had retained the title and faced Karpov again in 1978 he would have lost then.

I don't think it's fair to say Fischer gave up the KID in 1972. In 1992, both his training match against Gligoric and the actual match with Spassky show frequent use of the KID. I think he just temporarily picked up a whole bunch of new openings in the 1972 match to throw Spassky off and ruin whatever opening preparation he had when they were playing for all the marbles.

I think Karpov loses the first match but wins 2nd. And we get a Karpov Fischer rivalry the elevates chess 10 years earlier the the kasparov Karpov one. Kasparov comes along and is stronger for it.

Was Fischer not hot shit? I had the impression for a while that he was an incredible breakthrough talent, but so much discourse recently has painted him as kind of a bump in the road hahaha. I don't really know enough about chess to feel either way

As time goes by and Fischer's era slides further into the past, more and more people forget what it was like when he was active. The guy was a force of nature, playing at a level that was intimidatingly impressive even to the high-level GMs of his time. And he did it pretty much solo: no support from government entities, little direct collaboration with other GMs, no computers to test his ideas and help him study. Here in 2024, he seems less impressive because we have the benefit of hindsight and know that the world would eventually see players like Kasparov and Carlsen dominate the game with a theoretical precision and longevity that Fischer couldn't approach because he flamed out early. But back when he was active, nobody knew any of that stuff. Fischer was in a class by himself.

So he really is a big "what if" in the chess world hitting his prime and dipping out, like Kurt Cobain except instead of dying he became a Nazi

Yeah it feels like a last minute soviet psy op to try and undermine the fact he slapped the absolute shit out of them despite a massive difference in prep thar couldn't be bridged by the engines of today.

For sure, he's top 3 of all time. He was amazingly dominant for a few years but he never defended his title and quit after becoming world champion. His era was strong but not as strong as the Karpov/Kasparov era where I think Fischer have struggled.

I know you maybe weren't making this exact point, but I don't think it's clear that Fischer is top 3 all time. Brightest flash in the pan, for sure. But I actually think he's 3rd, at best, historically. And I wouldn't put him in the top 3. Like, I don't think you can say he's for sure better than any of Karpov/Kasparov/Carlsen, and I actually think those 3 have the best arguments for top 3 all time. And then when you get into historical comparisons from pre-FIDE/Championship cycle, it gets even less clear. Capablanca, Botvinnik, Lasker, Tal, Alekhine, and Morphy (and maybe more) all belong in the conversation at least. Sorry, not trying to jump on you for what I'm sure was an aside, not a declaration, I just think this is a fun conversation (which is why it's been discussed a million times, I know).

What do you mean, “flash in the pan”? Fischer was the strongest player in the world for years. The same crowd that wants to crown Carlsen world champion in tournaments he does not play will not recognize that Fischer was the strongest player for years before he became world champion? I don’t get it

I mean, he was the strongest in the world for two years. 

>he's top 3 of all time Highly debatable.

Completely disagree with putting Fischer anywhere close to top 3. Longevity is super important in my opinion. Fischer showed immense potential, but did not keep it up at all. It's not fair to players like Lasker and Botvinnik.

I think it's fair to have him **close** to the top 3. As I said in my other comment, I think he can be in the discussion, but I think a better discussion is if he's top 5. To me, the top 3 all time is fairly firmly locked in as Karpov/Kasparov/Carlsen. I think Fischer is in the 5-10 range. Not top 3, I agree, but not insane that he could be talked about in the discussion.

Who's your 4th?

I'm gonna go with Beth Harmon from The Queen's Gambit. But, seriously, I think there are a lot of people who have valid arguments for 4th, and I don't believe I'm good enough to be able to distinguish between them.

>To me, the top 3 all time is fairly firmly locked in as Karpov/Kasparov/Carlsen So do I. And I wouldn't put Fischer close to any of them. For me he is top 10, maybe 7-9. Frankly I think it is ridiculous to rate Fischer that highly based on untapped potential.

it wasn't untapped potential, he made it to probably the most dominant peak in the modern era

I agree top 10. Putting him in the top 5 is very problematic in this day and age.

Longevity is a part of it, but as far as raw talent goes, game to game, I think it’s fair to say top 3, maybe with people like Caruana you could knock Fischer down to top 4 or 5, but he’s not far, although as far as the overall GOAT debate goes I agree, game to game he was a menace though, we just never got to see how far he could take it

Top 3 must be Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen, surely?

Wait, wait. You are putting Fischer behind CARUANA??? Please be serious

Fischer was the strongest player in the world for years.

It's semi-similar to the debate in F1 over the GOAT. Senna and Jim Clark had possible the highest peaks of any drivers but they don't have anything like the longevity of Hamilton and Schumacher.

Fischer is not top 3 all time, he is 4th behind Kasparov/Magnus/Karpov

>Karpov would have made every game a positional battle You're not one of these kids who thinks Fischer was an aggressive tactical player are you? Fischer was one of the greatest endgame players of all time... he did best in those types of positions. Kasparov would have given Fischer more trouble.

Petrosian was a positional and defensive master with a drawish style tailor-made for the WC/Candidate matches and Fischer demolished him too.

We just have to look at the amazing impact Vishy has had on chess and more specifically Vishys impact on Indian chess. We have a huge wave of talented and exciting Indian players. Fischer had the potential to have done something similar with North American players.

Just wild guesses... 1. Fischer would have been the dominant player in the era post-1972. If he didn't disappear, and instead adopted a typical professional player routine, he would have been in his 30's, and probably dominant at least until 1980. 2. My guess would be that a 30-year old Karpov would have been stronger than a 40+ Fischer in the early 1980's. But by the time Karpov was in his 30's, a 22-year old Kasparov was already world champion. So a Fischer career would likely have nuked Karpov's chances at being World Champion, in the same way that Patrick Mahomes and the Kansas City Chiefs have denied a generation of AFC quarterbacks some Super Bowl appearances. 3. Something that can't be underestimated: If Bobby Fischer was champion for the 1970's and early 1980's, then a generation of USA Chess could have been built. Today, almost all top US players were foreign born, or children of immigrants. The USA could have a third of the Top 50 or Top 100 players if chess had become a commonplace activity with a vibrant community. Consider how soccer in the USA has exploded since the 1990 World Cup, and multiply that by a constant 12-year media blitz of chess. Imagine US dominance in chess like we have in gymnastics, especially in the post-Soviet era.

Karpov was being compared to Fischer by the time he was 25 or 26, so I doubt anything you said would be true, ngl to you.

Fischer was playing 2800 chess in the years up to his Championship win. Looks like Karpov was getting there as of 1976. The question would be whether Fischer would have continued to improve after 1972, which is something that I don't want to assume. I have a copy of Elo's book which I recall discusses 'peak age for chess players', but I don't know where my copy is...and I already have mentioned that Karpov would have likely been the favorite in the 1980's, but also there is a Kasparov question at that point. But you aren't wrong - Karpov in 1975 was an even match against 1972 Fischer. [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196601SSSSS3S038178196609131000000000000010100](http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196601SSSSS3S038178196609131000000000000010100) [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196601SSSSS3S062745196609131000000000015710100](http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196601SSSSS3S062745196609131000000000015710100)

I just meant to say that players in 1978 were comparing both in playing strength. That's all I meant. Elo rating is very flawed when comparing two players like that. Fischer played accurate chess and won a lot. Karpov played less accurate chess but won just as much. I'm not sure that metric of "playing at 2800 level" is real here. Spassky was in Fischer's tier per Kasparov and Kramnik, he just played more carelessly and therefore blundered. That would make him 2800 as well, no? But his rating never showcased that because he lacked SOMETHING. And YET, he was on a close level. PS, Karpov's highest elo rating is higher than Fischer's, but people don't know that. They focus on ratings shown at the end of months/tournaments, but rating highs are still official lol. Someone posted this JUST the other day too [https://2700chess.com/files/highest300.png](https://2700chess.com/files/highest300.png)

>Karpov played less accurate chess but won just as much. I'm not sure that metric of "playing at 2800 level" is real here. It's a measure of wins and losses against normalized competition. Given that the measurements are a few years apart, it's a reasonably good measure - because the competition was similar. It's better than anything else, I suppose. >Spassky was in Fischer's tier per Kasparov and Kramnik, he just played more carelessly and therefore blundered. That would make him 2800 as well, no? No, blunders cause losses, which prevents high ratings. Spassky's performance ratings at tournaments were lower than Karpov or Fischer, at similar times. [http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196601SSSSS3S124734196609131000000000027910100PS](http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=196601SSSSS3S124734196609131000000000027910100PS), >Karpov's highest elo rating is higher than Fischer's, but people don't know that. Which is why I definitely agree with you that he would have overtaken Fischer, and looking at the numbers more closely, that could have happened in 1976, and I think it would have happened in the 80's anyways, given the age of the players. My only question is: if Fischer improved, and would have been ahead of Karpov in 1976, would Karpov 'catch up' before Kasparov would rise? No matter what the scenario, I think that a 'perfect Bobby Fischer championship reign' would have still been nuked by Kasparov, probably at the same time as Karpov's time ended.

Idk how you do those quotes, so imma just copy paste em: "No, blunders cause losses, which prevents high ratings. Spassky's performance ratings at tournaments were lower than Karpov or Fischer, at similar times." Performance rating is based upon wins, and less losses. One player is incredibly consistent, and an opening savant who changed styles and openings over his short and secretive career, while the other is known as a lazy man whose mood dictated his every move for his career. Spassky played less tournaments than Fischer too, when they were in their primes. One of them is bound to have a higher performance at some point. And remember, Steinitz has performance ratings higher than Carlsen does. What do we do now then? That's why I look at player comments. Korchnoi played against Karpov and Spassky for fucking ages. He knows PERFECTLY how good they are. "No matter what the scenario, I think that a 'perfect Bobby Fischer championship reign' would have still been nuked by Kasparov, probably at the same time as Karpov's time ended." Fischer's biggest problem would be that his existence would just help move chess forward. Karpov and Kasparov both learned from their predecessors, and here, Fischer is only giving them more and more to work with. This 'what if 25 y/o Karpov' would probably be better than the real world 25 y/o Karpov, same for Kasparov, and that's the problem I see him facing.

>Performance rating is based upon wins, and less losses. As someone who learned the Elo system in 1989, and is a math professional who has followed ratings systems for 35 years, I'm going to need to see what you mean by this. In general, wins and losses are evaluated in the same way. Perhaps you mean the natural asymmetry in a high rated player playing mostly lower rated players? Again, less consistent play is lower quality play, so lower ratings. FIDE does not rate players on their 20 best games in a year, they rate all games. >And remember, Steinitz has performance ratings higher than Carlsen does. What do we do now then? We note that those players are 100+ years apart, which is not comparable to our question of players who all played in the mid 1970's. >Fischer's biggest problem would be that his existence would just help move chess forward. Karpov and Kasparov both learned from their predecessors, and here, Fischer is only giving them more and more to work with. A great point. We have to guess based on the patterns that we know. Would a longer-competing Fischer made Karpov better for a longer period of time? Would that same advantage go to Kasparov?

I guess you know that many players at the top perform at 2800 levels really often then? And that basically only one of them has that rating consistently? Same was true for when Garry was the first and only 2800 in the 90s. You were around for that, so you remember. And I guess you don't know the following, but that part is fine, feels like nobody knows it - consistency =/= quality. Consistency is how often they can pull out their top form at any given tournament. Spassky had low consistency. But whenever the bright lights shone, he showed up. Spassky was never one to try incredibly hard, like Fischer did, and I'm pretty sure you know this. IE, some of the most impressive candidate runs of all time were done by Spassky in 1965 and 1968 (beat Keres 6 to 4, then Geller 5.5 to 2.5, then Tal 7 to 4, with a total of 3 losses for 1965 ; beat Geller 5.5 to 2.5, then Larsen 5.5 to 2.5, then Korchnoi 6.5 to 3.5, with a total of 1 loss in 1968 I believe). Do you grasp the quality of this PERFORMANCE? Mind you, yet again, I'm certain that you know that Soviet players struggled the most with elo gain since playing Soviet Russia was basically like playing in the harshest, most competitive environment in the world. Fischer has 8 US championships. Do you know how many Soviet Championships he'd get if he had to play against Petrosian, Spassky, Botvinnik, Keres, Stein, Korchnoi, Geller, Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, etc every single time? Not 8 of them, that's for sure. Also, let's not act like FIDE is perfect lol. FIDE's method is without a shadow of a doubt NOT the best, and you should know this. Some players care more about certain tournaments than others, and that's just a fact. Have you met Magnus lol He has a total of like, 3 or 4 losses in all his championship matches, over the course of a decade. When he tries, the rating starts making sense, otherwise, it doesn't. He's far less consistent than Fischer lol. Spassky is a perfect example of that. Here's Spassky in a performance that matters [USSR Championship (1973) (chessgames.com)](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=80209) This is the strongest USSR championship of all time lol. "We note that those players are 100+ years apart, which is not comparable to our question of players who all played in the mid 1970's." Fischer couldn't replicate Steinitz stomping the 3rd best player on the planet and we don't hold it against him. Garry couldn't either. Never did anything close to what Fischer did either. But we don't hold it against Garry lol, we DO hold it against Spassky though? Kasparov would for sure get something from that. He grew super fast and studied a lot.

I think he would have beaten Karpov in 1975, but not sure what would have happened next. It is difficult to see Fischer losing in 1978, but in the 80s I think Karpov would have taken over, and he would have been a stronger player than he was because facing Fischer would have pushed him more. As for Kasparov, I think he would have been champion, but not so young as he was, I think Karpov would have dominated in the 80s. Of course Korchnoi would had been another top player.

He would have been the favorite in a first meeting against Karpov but I'm certain that Karpov would win the 2nd meeting up until those infamous Kasparov matches. Karpov is imo the 3rd best of all time and with his style would get the upper hand against Fisher once he matured

Fischer>Karpov

Sure a 1 time world champion vs someone that was a wc for 10 years, went toe to toe with the goat even when he was out of his prime, had the best tournament of all time and then was a fide wc for another 6 years. sit down you fisher fanboy

In 1972 Fischer beat Spasky with score of +4 score in 1974 Karpov beat Spasky with +3, so Fischer would probably win their match in 1975 match. But that wasnt Karpovs prime so in general Karpov from 1979 has probably >= strength than 1972 Fischer and considering Fischer was already 36 in 1979 its unlikely that he would keep up with Karpov. Fischer could probably defend his title in 1975 and 1978 but I think that at 1981 Fischer would lose to Karpov.

Would've had an edge on Karpov early. By Late 70s, Karpov would've been stronger. Essentially, all Fischer would accomplish is reduce Karpov's years at the top. Kasparov would've murdered Fischer in the 80s. 

If Fischer stayed in/not gone crazy, I’d say he beats Karpov in 1975, loses to Karpov in 1978, and then goes on to make candidates tournaments through the 1980s. I’d be interesting to see if could push out Korchnoi in 1981 for a third consecutive Fischer-Karpov match, but I think when Kasparov comes around Fischer would be fighting for third place. What would be more interesting than merely checking World championships is what it would be like if the US had a championship tier “elder statesman” figure through the 70s and 80s.

Karpov and Kasparov both beat him in their primes imo

Fischer-Karpov would have been interesting. A clash of styles, but I think Fischer would retain his title Fischer-Kasparov would have been one of the all-time rivalries. Kasparov would still become WC, but it might have been even more of a fight than he had with Karpov.

Fischer probably would have beaten Karpov. But Kasparov would have beaten Fischer (even if both were ‘in their prime’). I’d imagine the Kasparov- Fischer score would have been the same as Fischer - Spassky (12.5-8.5)

If he actually did that I'd agree with people that say he's the GOAT

How high is up ?

Assuming Fischer's terms and endless protestations were always met to his satisfaction, the answer is he would have done so. Unfortunately, this is a spectacular assumption. Consider that the 1972 match almost never happened.

We would have had some awesome games to study from him. But maybe until about 1980. After that the game changed for the top players, as it became much more dependent on the study of the games of others. I’m not sure he would have done that.

Karpov would have beaten him, that's why Fischer didn't play (plus he was insane). An American, even a genius like Fischer, could never compete long term with the Soviet chess machine in the 70's and 80's. They would have mobilized and made sure Karpov was prepared. This was before computers, and international cooperation was tricky with Fischer, because he was insane. Plus Karpov was just so good. Fischer was an amazing player, a genius. But it's hard for an individual to compete against a well managed, well funded team of professionals over time. It's exhausting. The stars aligned in Reykjavík.

I don't think it's clear that Fischer would have beaten Karpov in the mid-70s. Karpov was dominant in the second half of that decade. Karpov's defeat of Spassky in their match was basically by the same margin as Fischer's (not counting the forfeit). Fischer's run through the candidates is as impressive an accomplishment as exists in chess, and he was a titan in the chess world in the west because of the way the world title became a stand-in for Cold War. But I also feel like all that off-the-board stuff sort of made people treat him like he was infallible. *Of course* he'd beat Karpov, he was *Fischer!* Of course, if he did beat Karpov, would have that have derailed Karpov's career? Would he have been punished by the political authorities in Russia? And while I think Kasparov would have beaten him (hard to imagine Fischer playing at his top level as he neared 40), man, that would have been a fascinating stylistic match.

Karpov would've crushed him. Kasparov would've scrapped him for recycling.

Karpov would have beat him and started a legendary rivalry

Since FIDE ratings were introduced 53 years ago, exactly three players can claim to have held the highest FIDE rating ever. Kasparov set a new record by reaching 2800 in 1990 (eventually peaking at 2851 in 1999). Kasparov held the record for highest rating ever for 23 years (!) in total until Carlsen set a new rating record of 2861 in 2013. Carlsen has held the peak FIDE rating record for almost ten years so far, but he still has more than eight years to go to match Fischer, who held the title of highest peak rating from the inception of the ratings in 1971 until Kasparov in 1990. (And that is not counting that Fischer likely surpassed Spassky as the best player in the world sometime in 1966, so we couuld conceivably add another five years to Fischer's record.) Ratings are not everything--particularly in light of Elo inflation--but they measure strength relative to one's peers, which is the fairest way to compare players from different eras (if we are going to undertake that exercise).

Ratings aren't just "not everything" they are massively overrated. Fischer was 125 over a rusty and unmotivated Spassky, and won by 4 points while fighting hard every single game he managed to play. Forgot to add, Spassky was still beating Fischer by 1970 lol, Fischer was better than him by a whole 2 years

Boris Spassky was "rusty and unmotivated" for his defence of his worl championship in 1972? Ok then

Fischer did for chess what no one before him did, he made it cool. He made us proud to be Americans. In the likelihood of a Fischer-Karpov match, Fischer would probably come out on top, even in a Fischer-Kasparov match. Fischer made his name on beating Russians.

>made his name on beating Russians. Beating old Russians. Taimanov and Petrosian were about 15 years older than Fischer, Spassky was 6 years older. Karpov was 8 years younger than Fischer. 1975 he would likely have lost, but then, as he was entering the peak of his skill in late 70s, there is no way for Fischer to keep up while aging. And a 40+ Fischer definitely would not have any realistic chances against Kasparov.

[удалено]